One of the principles of anti-corruption is responsibility. Principles of anti-corruption, legal and organizational framework for preventing and combating corruption

Anti-corruption in Russian Federation is based on the following basic principles:

1) recognition, provision and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen;

2) legality;

3) publicity and openness of the activities of state bodies and local governments;

4) the inevitability of responsibility for committing corruption offenses;

5) integrated use of political, organizational, information and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures;

6) priority application of measures to prevent corruption;

7) cooperation between the state and civil society institutions, international organizations and individuals.

Measures to prevent corruption

Prevention of corruption is carried out by applying the following basic measures:

1) the formation in society of intolerance towards corrupt behavior;

2) anti-corruption examination of legal acts and their projects;

3) presentation in accordance with the procedure established by law qualification requirements for citizens , applying to replace government or municipal positions and positions of state or municipal service, as well as verification in the prescribed manner of information provided by these citizens;

4) establishing as a basis for dismissal a person holding a state or municipal service position included in the list established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, from the position being filled state or municipal service or for application in relation to his other measures of legal liability failure to provide information or provision of knowingly false or incomplete information about their income, property and property-related obligations, as well as submission of knowingly false information about income, about the property and property-related obligations of their spouse and minor children;

5) introduction into the practice of personnel work of federal bodies state power, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments rules, according to which long-term, impeccable and effective performance by state or municipal employees of their job responsibilities must be taken into account when appointing him to a higher position, assigning him a military or special rank, class rank, diplomatic rank or with his encouragement;

6) development of institutions of public and parliamentary control for compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on combating corruption.

What measures, in your opinion, should an optimal strategy to combat corruption in Russia contain?

· limiting the stay of governors in power - no more than two terms;

restoration of the election of governors

· restoration of political competition, adoption of the law on opposition;

· Exemplary serious punishments

· Financial statements

· Adoption of the LAW!!!

The first is legislative changes in the field of criminal law and processes related to both international obligations Russia, and with the current situation in the country.

The second and, according to him, much more the hard part The plan is precisely the creation of anti-corruption incentives. It depends on the general level life in the country, salary level, on how unconditionally and strictly the laws are applied to those who break the law, in relation to the so-called corrupt officials, those who take bribes and commit other corrupt acts." At the same time, Medvedev expressed the opinion that highest form such motivation is when it becomes obvious to the person who is going to receive a bribe that this should not be done, because it could ruin his whole life.

The third is “a change in legal consciousness, a change in people’s thinking.”

Define a government decision. What are the main types of government decisions?

State decision- Selection and justification of certain actions of government bodies aimed at achieving public goals

Types of government decisions:

• Political and administrative - direction of the country, determination of powers, etc.
• Programmed and unprogrammed

Factors in the decision-making process:

1. Decision maker (DM)
2. Decision-maker-dependent variables
3. Variables independent of the decision maker
4. Restrictions on the parameters of dependent and independent variables - the range of feasible solutions
5. Alternatives
6. Criteria for evaluating alternatives
7. Possibility of implementing the decision made

Rational policy model:

• Define the problem
• Understand all the requirements for all decisions that will need to be made
• Make a list of all alternatives
• Identify resources for each alternative
• Calculate the costs and benefits associated with each option
• Make a decision based on all relevant information, focusing on max benefits and min costs.

As is known , the process of making not only government decisions, but also decisions as such is studied in science from the points of view normative and behavioral theories. First Some of them treat it as a process rational choice of management goals in complex situations. Moreover, it may well be detailed and operationalized in order to find optimal solutions. To solve this problem it is proposed to use various mathematical models, operations research and other rational-logical means.

Another approach looks at this process as a form of specific interaction between people, which cannot be explained and described by purely rational and quantitative methods. First of all, this is due to the peculiarities of human behavior, which, as is known, can be motivated by various kinds of affects and irrational reasons. and then from the point of view of adherents of this approach, The goals that people set for themselves are too complex to be reduced to quantitative indicators. And there are significantly more possible alternatives to solving the problem than are known to the subject or that can be included in consideration. Thus, the main emphasis here is on varied - including quality - description of various factors, influencing decision-making in a specific situation and the corresponding behavior of the subject.

Main theoretical approaches:

• Normative – G. Simon
• Behavioral – Ch. Lindblum

Any management decision based on choice (minimum 2), the decision must be binding – normative approach– there is always a goal and values, specification of tasks with With the help of certain actions, consequences are determined, then the choice of alternatives and the achievement of goals.

The idea of ​​the impossibility of consistently carrying out a decision-making algorithm, because it is very difficult to bring abstract values ​​to tasks according to resources - behavioral approach – it is impossible to take into account the totality of factors the system must integrate goals and strategies, rather than first defining goals and then choosing strategies. There must be a constant adjustment of goals and strategy, because there is no constant. You need to start with small goals and achieve them.

It seems, from a practical point of view, that it is advisable to use an integrated approach, using not only methods) of a qualitative description of the situation, but also means of quantitative analysis (especially in relation to the study of individual, primarily structured phases and states of the decision-making process). This is the only way to most fully characterize both universal and specific features of the process of formation and implementation of state goals.

Types of solutions

¨ Political and administrative

¨ Programmed and unprogrammed

• Political and administrative.

Political decisions– decisions based on the authority of the person making them (DM) and providing for the distribution (redistribution) of public resources in the interests of certain social groups.

Administrative decisions – solutions aimed at implementing government functions organs in accordance with existing norms and regulations.

It is necessary to distinguish political and administrative decisions.

Political-- concentrated expression political leadership. They are subordinated to the implementation of common interests and common goals of social groups or a given community. Even if political decisions are made on regional level or within a local community, they affect interests of the state union of people, functioning of state power.

Administrative decisions are acts of management actions that regulate the functioning of certain types of production, economic, social and cultural life of people and the current practical activities of individual organizations.

Political decisions, unlike administrative ones, are always directly or indirectly addressed certain social groups of people, serve as a means of regulating relations between them, are a way expression and implementation of social interests and goals. They are the result activities of subjects of political power and political leadership.

According to the principle policy priorities in the state management, political decisions are dominant meaning in relation to administrative and managerial ones.

· Programmed and unprogrammed

Programmed decisions are routine, repetitive, having analogues in the past (budget adoption).

Unprogrammed - innovative (adoption of federal targeted programs, national projects)

Programmed Solutions are a response to recurring organizational problems. When the rules are formulated, programmed decisions can be made by the manager's subordinates, freeing him up to solve other problems.

Non-programmed solutions are a response to the emergence of unique, ill-defined and unstructured situations that have important consequences for the organization. Many unprogrammed solutions include strategic planning because uncertainty is high and decisions are complex

Government decisions are grouped on many grounds. In particular:

· by subject level in the system of state power and management - decisions of federal, regional and local bodies;

· by the nature of goals and objectives -- political or administrative decisions, leadership and executive, strategic or operational-tactical, national or related to individual areas of state life;

· in the spheres of life of society - decisions on economic, social, problems of state construction and management, cultural construction, etc.;

· in terms of the scope of coverage of the management object - system-wide, general political, macroeconomic, microsocial decisions (related to individual groups of production, economic and social groups); on management functions - issues of planning, organization, control, etc.

Examples of political decisions serve: state programs, socio-economic, socio-political concepts and military-strategic concepts, legislative acts of a constitutional nature adopted by the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Decrees of the President of Russia on general issues of state activity, etc.

Among administrative and managerial decisions should be called resolutions The Government of Russia, as well as orders and directives of ministries and departments.

Decisions at the regional level are formulated in the form of laws adopted by representative bodies of power, constitutions of republics, charters of regions, territories, resolutions of heads of administrations of constituent entities of the Federation, etc. They can be both political and legal and administrative acts.

Administrative decisions federal government bodies and subjects of the Federation may carry a political aspect to the extent that they act as a means of implementing general federal policy or the Basic Law of the state. And in general, the difference we have emphasized between political and administrative decisions is relative, since, as stated, public administration is by its nature a political phenomenon. Politics is the determining level (in terms of significance) of management. This is also recognized by some foreign authors. For example, the French political scientist M. Poniatowski divides the management of public affairs into three levels: politics means what to do and why; execution - how to do it and with what help; administration is an auxiliary tool.

Corruption poses a serious threat to the functioning public authority on the basis of law and law, the rule of law and undermines the population’s trust in government power and significantly slows down economic development. Corruption in Russia is a systemic phenomenon, therefore, an effective fight against it is possible only by using a set of economic, political, legal, social, information, propaganda and other measures.

In the system of initial principles of anti-corruption, an important place belongs to the principles on which these activities should be built and carried out. In this regard, in order to increase the effectiveness of anti-corruption activities, it seems necessary to clarify the general characteristics of the principles and determine their role in the field of preventing and suppressing corruption. According to the Russian language dictionary S.I. Ozhegova, “a principle is the basic, initial position of any theory, teaching, science, etc.” .

Thus, it can be argued that the principles in this case are the fundamental principles in the activities of the relevant structures and formations to combat corruption.

The basic principles of the fight against corruption are enshrined in Article 3 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Combating Corruption”:

• 1) recognition, observance and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen;
• 2) legality;
• 3) publicity and openness of the activities of state bodies and local governments;
• 4) the inevitability of responsibility for committing corruption offenses;
• 5) integrated use of political, organizational, information and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures;
• 6) priority application of measures to prevent corruption;
• 7) cooperation of the state with civil society institutions, international organizations and individuals.

The principles listed in the law are fundamental when developing measures to combat corruption. Unfortunately, the listed principles are only declared by law, but their content is not disclosed. In addition, practical anti-corruption activities may be based on other principles, depending on the subjects and types of influence, as well as the interpretation of existing ones.

In this regard, we have made an attempt to both reveal the content of the principles listed in the Law and discuss the significance of other grounds in the activities of various structures and formations in the fight against corruption in society.

The principle of recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is that when implementing anti-corruption measures, the state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms for affected persons, regardless of gender, nationality, origin, property and official status, place of residence, beliefs, as well as other circumstances.

The principle of legality is expressed in the fact that the activities of subjects of individual prevention should be based and regulated on the basis of the developed legislative framework. Further unification and compliance with legislation is necessary in order to more effectively apply legal norms in this area, as well as the use of clear, transparent and predictable procedures and measures in law enforcement practice.

The task of combating corruption through legislative measures covers the development of almost the entire legal system. In this regard, the idea of ​​the National Anti-Corruption Committee of Russia to develop legislative standards of an anti-corruption nature for each branch of law is relevant, which will allow, by comparing the current legislation of the country, region or municipality with the said standards, to assess the degree of favorableness of the legal climate in this territory for corruption.

At the same time, the state must have effective means of control and supervision over the proper implementation of laws and other regulations in the field of anti-corruption policy. In addition, it is unacceptable to set anti-corruption standards below the level determined by federal laws.

The implementation of the principle of publicity and openness of the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies is directly related to the implementation of the following measures: ensuring that it is inadmissible to restrict access of all interested parties to information about facts of corruption, corruption-causing factors and anti-corruption policy measures; introduction into practice of mandatory analysis of bills and departmental legal documents for corruption potential; improving the decision-making mechanisms of state authorities and local self-government in the current legislation, making them more transparent and public; development and adoption of a program to increase the legal literacy of the population with the participation of public associations and funds mass media; development and adoption ethical codes behavior for all branches and levels of government in the Russian Federation (following the example of the Code of Professional Ethics for Employees of the Internal Affairs Bodies of the Russian Federation); support and encouragement of those media and public associations that are engaged in anti-corruption propaganda, dissemination of the ideas of law and order in the country; constantly informing the public about the implementation of anti-corruption programs in Russia and abroad; public opposition to the myth of the invincibility of corruption in the country.

The principle of the inevitability of responsibility for committing corruption offenses - despite the fact that corruption-related illegal attacks belong to the category of highly latent acts, law enforcement agencies in their activities must strive to ensure that all participants in corruption receive a well-deserved punishment for their illegal actions.

To this end, it is necessary to further improve operational investigative activities in order to identify, disclose, suppress and prevent crimes related to corruption, as well as apply, in accordance with the procedure established by law, special financial control measures in order to prevent the legalization of illegally acquired property. Money and other property.

The principle of complexity is that:

• · firstly, when implementing anti-corruption measures, it is necessary to use comprehensively political, organizational, information and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures;
• · secondly, issues of combating corruption affect the areas of activity of many federal executive authorities, therefore, the implementation of anti-corruption programs is fully possible only if they consolidate their efforts to solve a complex of problems in combating manifestations of corruption.

The range of actors in the fight against corruption is quite wide, which is why their activities require coordination. Civil society institutions are involved in the fight against corruption, along with government bodies ( public organizations, associations, etc.), other legal entities and individuals. In addition, subjects of the fight against corruption - individuals, along with citizens of the Russian Federation, can be foreign citizens and stateless persons permanently residing or temporarily staying in the territory of our country, or fighting corruption in other states.

Opposition various types corruption should be carried out on a planned and program basis, in which the main emphasis should be placed on the priority of measures aimed at preventing corruption in society.

In order to implement the principle of cooperation between the state and civil society institutions, international organizations and individuals, it is necessary; accelerate the implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe Convention on criminal liability for corruption in Russian legislation; accelerate Russia's accession to the Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Corruption and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions; develop bilateral and multilateral international cooperation in all areas of the fight against corruption; organize internships for Russian specialists in countries where anti-corruption programs are successfully implemented (by departmental affiliation); create the necessary conditions for legal education and attracting public attention to corrupt practices.

The implementation of the scientific principle involves the creation of a system of regular monitoring of the corruption situation in the Russian Federation and individual regions of the country. Monitoring should be carried out on a regulatory and legal basis, carried out by the most competent specialists in order to identify the degree of seriousness and danger of the problem of corruption in society and the halo of the spread of this phenomenon in various spheres of life.

The results of the analysis of corruption “infestation” in society should be considered as the basis for the development, adjustment and implementation of preventive programs, plans and activities.

The principle of timeliness (efficiency) is manifested in the following: the faster the relevant structures respond to signals about corruption facts in the activities of various structures, the more adequate and effective preventive measures will be.

Compliance with the principle of economy (socio-economic feasibility) is important due to the fact that the anti-corruption measures developed for implementation must bring significant changes in the crime situation in this area, and the volume of funding must be within the framework of the intended goals and objectives.

When implementing this principle, it is necessary to abandon relapses of excessive ideologization of measures taken, anti-criminal populism, and momentary political and opportunistic approaches to solving problems of combating corruption crime.

Anti-corruption policy should be implemented through targeted budget financing from state authorities and local governments. Unfortunately, programs of this kind that are often adopted, both at the federal and regional levels, are not implemented due to insufficient resources. Funding for such programs usually does not exceed 60-70% of the funds required for their implementation. This not only sharply reduces the effectiveness of the planned measures, but also compromises law enforcement officials involved in combating various forms of corruption.

Compliance with the principle of equality of all before the law and the court plays an important role in the fight against corruption, since in the practice of law enforcement agencies there are often cases of the so-called selective application of legislation, when the law works for some but not for others.

The guarantee of compliance with this principle is the anti-corruption activity of the citizens themselves and the public; filing appeals to the prosecutor's office, courts, communicating information through the media, etc.

The implementation of the principle of efficiency is directly related to objective indicators of the performance of the operational units of the internal affairs department in terms of the number of detected facts of corruption, taking into account the high latency of such crimes. The ratio of identified, investigated and solved corruption crimes based on court convictions should also be taken into account, which characterizes the qualitative side of the work carried out. The number of corrupt officials identified and measures taken to neutralize their corrupt activities should also be taken into account. This indicator can be assessed by the number of persons placed on operational records, cases of preliminary operational inspection opened and operational cases completed by production.

The principle of equality of rights of participants in civil law relations is associated, on the one hand, with the state’s protection of the rights and legitimate interests of persons authorized to carry out government functions, and persons equated to them, the establishment of wages (salary) and benefits for these persons, providing these persons and their families with a decent standard of living, and on the other hand, the inadmissibility of establishing privileges and immunities that limit liability or complicate the procedure for holding persons accountable, holding public positions, positions of state, municipal or other services who have committed corruption offenses. Actions to implement anti-corruption policy must meet the requirements of planning, consistency and continuity of government departmental measures in order to streamline them and increase the efficiency of the activities of specific entities.

The importance of observing the principle of prioritization lies in the fact that the success of anti-corruption measures depends on the right choice sequences of actions; ensuring transparency of the actions of the subjects of implementation of the assigned tasks; creating more effective control mechanisms, as well as conditions for legal education and attracting public attention to the problem of corruption in the country.

The principle of broad partnership between the subjects of the formation and implementation of anti-corruption policy measures is to create a broad public anti-corruption alliance between the government, non-governmental organizations, citizens and private enterprise. This type of cooperation is absolutely necessary due to the nationwide scale of the ongoing struggle. The success of this fight depends on creating an environment in which corruption is perceived in the public consciousness as a serious criminal offense.

Thus, the current criminological situation predetermines the need to develop an effective state anti-corruption program, develop an effective regulatory base, the basis of which should be the corresponding principles, enshrined at the level of the foundations of the constitutional system of modern Russia and implemented in the practical activities of various subjects.

Countering terrorism is a comprehensive activity of state bodies, public associations and organizations within their competence established by national legislation, using measures of legal, political, socio-economic, ideological and other nature, aimed at preventing, suppressing and solving crimes of a terrorist nature, at carrying out criminal justice against terrorists, to minimize the consequences of acts of terrorism.

To date, a stable worldview has been formed in the world community and in the Russian Federation and the basic principles of countering terrorism and extremism have been developed.

At its meeting on January 20, 2003, the UN Security Council adopted a declaration on the fight against terrorism, in which it confirmed that:

• terrorism in all its forms and manifestations represents one of the most serious threats international peace and safety;
• All acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motives, whenever and by whomever they are committed, and are subject to unconditional condemnation, especially when they are indiscriminate or when they harm civilians;
• there is a serious and growing threat of terrorist access to and use of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially lethal materials and therefore there is a need to strengthen controls over these materials;
• Terrorism can only be defeated by applying, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, a sustainable, comprehensive approach involving the active participation and cooperation of all States, international and regional organizations, as well as through intensified efforts at the national level.

The legal basis of the national system of countering terrorism in the Russian Federation are:

• Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• generally accepted principles and norms international law;
• international treaties of the Russian Federation;
• federal constitutional laws;
• Federal laws “On Security”, “On Countering Terrorism”, “On Countering extremist activities»;
• regulatory legal acts of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation;
• National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020;
• Concept foreign policy Russian Federation;
• Military doctrine of the Russian Federation;
• Concept of countering terrorism in the Russian Federation;
• regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation aimed at improving activities in this area.

These laws and acts create (constitute) the legal basis for protecting the state, society and every citizen from extremism and terrorism. Knowledge of the basic content of these laws and acts will help you independently assess the events and phenomena of society and your Everyday life from the position of strengthening public and personal safety, make the right decision on participation or rejection of some actions that make you an involuntary accomplice in breaking the law. It will be much more difficult to mislead you about the consequences of what you are doing and what supporters of extremism and terrorism may call you to do.

So, knowing the laws will help you make conscious life choices and avoid becoming a victim. The contents of some of the above laws will be detailed in the following paragraphs.

Basic principles of countering extremist activities

Countering extremist activities is based on the following principles:

• recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, as well as the legitimate interests of organizations;
• legality;
• publicity;
• priority of ensuring the security of the Russian Federation;
• priority of measures aimed at preventing extremist activity;
• cooperation of the state with public and religious associations, other organizations, citizens in countering extremist activities;
• the inevitability of punishment for carrying out extremist activities.

Basic principles of countering terrorism

Countering terrorism in the Russian Federation is based on the following basic principles:

1. ensuring and protecting fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen;
2. legality;
3. priority of protecting the rights and legitimate interests of persons exposed to terrorist danger;
4. the inevitability of punishment for carrying out terrorist activities;
5. systematic and comprehensive use of political, informational and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures to counter terrorism;
6. cooperation of the state with public and religious associations, international and other organizations, citizens in countering terrorism;
7. priority of terrorism prevention measures;
8. unity of command in the management of the forces and means involved during counter-terrorism operations;
9. a combination of overt and covert methods of countering terrorism;
10. confidentiality of information about special means, technical methods, tactics for implementing counter-terrorism measures, as well as the composition of their participants;
11. the inadmissibility of political concessions to terrorists;
12. minimizing and (or) eliminating the consequences of terrorism;
13. proportionality of counter-terrorism measures to the degree of terrorist danger.

At the international level, the main directions of countering terrorism and extremism have been identified and formulated.

In this regard, the UN Security Council calls for the following steps to be taken:

1. All states must take urgent measures to prevent and suppress any active or passive support for terrorism and, in particular, fully implement all relevant Security Council resolutions.
2. The Security Council calls on states to:
   • become parties, as a matter of urgency, to all relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, in particular the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999, and support all international initiatives taken to this end, and make full use of sources of assistance and advice that are currently appearing;
   • provide each other with maximum assistance in preventing, investigating, prosecuting and punishing acts of terrorism, wherever they occur;
   • work closely to fully implement sanctions against terrorists and their supporters, in particular Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their supporters, as specified in a number of resolutions, take urgent measures to deny them access to financial resources necessary for them to carry out their activities and cooperate fully with the Monitoring Group.

Main directions of countering extremist activities

Countering extremist activities is carried out in the following main areas:

• taking preventive measures aimed at preventing extremist activity, including identifying and subsequently eliminating the causes and conditions conducive to extremist activity;
• identification, prevention and suppression of extremist activities of public and religious associations, other organizations, individuals.

conclusions

1. The world community and the Russian Federation have formulated the basic principles and directions of countering terrorist and extremist activities.
2. The international community believes that terrorism can only be defeated by applying a sustainable, comprehensive approach in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including the active participation and cooperation of all states, international and regional organizations, as well as by intensifying efforts at the national, interstate and international levels.
3. The fight against terrorism in the Russian Federation is aimed primarily at ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
4. The inevitability of punishment for carrying out terrorist and extremist activities has been determined.

Questions

1. How does the world community react to manifestations of terrorism?
2. What principles underlie the organization of countering terrorism and extremism in the Russian Federation?
3. What specific measures are provided in the Russian Federation to counter terrorism and extremism?
4. Why is it important to know the laws on countering extremism and terrorism?

Exercise

Select factual material and prepare a message on the topic “Any acts of terrorism are unjustifiable crimes.”

Article 1 of the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption”

Corruption

· abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of power, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, other property rights for oneself or for third parties or illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals;

· committing the acts specified in subparagraph “a” of this paragraph on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity;

Anti-corruption

Activities of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies, civil society institutions, organizations and individuals within the limits of their powers:

· on the prevention of corruption, including the identification and subsequent elimination of the causes of corruption (prevention of corruption);

· to identify, prevent, suppress, disclose and investigate corruption offenses (anti-corruption);

· to minimize and (or) eliminate the consequences of corruption offenses.

Article 3 of the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption”

Anti-corruption in the Russian Federation is based on the following basic principles:

1. Recognition, provision and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen;

2. Legality;

3. Publicity and openness of the activities of state bodies and local governments;

4. The inevitability of responsibility for committing corruption offenses;

5. Integrated use of political, organizational, information and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures;

6. Priority application of measures to prevent corruption;

7. cooperation of the state with civil society institutions, international organizations and individuals.

6. Principles of anti-corruption.

International legal framework

Anti-corruption

The UN Convention against Corruption was adopted at a UN conference on December 11, 2003 in Merida (Mexico).

The adoption of this important international legal act was preceded by a number of regional interstate multilateral legal acts on preventing and combating corruption. In particular,

Inter-American Convention against Corruption, adopted by the Organization of American States on March 29, 1996,

Convention for the Suppression of Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States European Union adopted by the Council of the European Union on 26 May 1997,

Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on November 21, 1997,

Convention on the Criminal Law of Corruption, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 27 January 1999,

Convention on Civil Liability for Corruption, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 4 November 1999 and

African Union Convention to Prevent and Combat Corruption, adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the African Union on 12 July 2003.

United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of 29 September 2003.

The preamble to the UN Convention against Corruption, adopted at the UN conference on December 11, 2003 in Mexico, states:

That States Parties to this Convention are concerned about the seriousness of the problems and threats posed by corruption to the stability and security of society, which undermine democratic institutions and values, ethical values ​​and justice and cause harm sustainable development And right to order,

That corruption is no longer a local problem, but has become a transnational phenomenon that affects the society and economy of all countries, which makes it extremely important international cooperation in the field of preventing and combating corruption,

- that the illegal acquisition of personal wealth can cause serious damage to democratic institutions, national economy and law and order,

- that the prevention and eradication of corruption is the responsibility of all States and that, to ensure the effectiveness of their efforts in this area, they must cooperate with each other, with the support and participation of individuals and groups outside the public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and organizations operating community-based

The following were noted as the objectives of the UN Convention in Article 1:

a) promoting and strengthening measures aimed at more effectively and efficiently preventing and combating corruption;

b) encouraging, facilitating and supporting International cooperation and technical assistance in preventing and combating corruption, including the adoption of measures for asset recovery;

c) promoting honesty, integrity, responsibility, and the proper management of public affairs and public property.

The UN Convention against Corruption also states that, in order to prevent and combat corruption, each State Party, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system, shall develop and implement or pursue effective and coordinated anti-corruption policies that promote public participation and reflect the principles of the rule of law, good governance public affairs and public property, honesty and integrity, transparency and responsibility.

Each State Party shall endeavor to establish and promote effective practices aimed at preventing corruption and, where appropriate, in accordance with fundamental principles Within their legal systems, States Parties are required to cooperate with each other and with relevant international and regional organizations in developing and facilitating the implementation of measures. This interaction may include participation in international programs and projects aimed at preventing corruption.

In order to ensure transparency in the activities of government agencies, each government agency has ensured the functioning of its own website; the heads of ministries and departments have created personal blogs on the government portal on which dialogue is carried out with the population of the country.

All government bodies adopt departmental programs and plans to combat corruption, which include various anti-corruption measures.

In particular, the tax authorities have approved the Strategy for Combating Corruption in the Tax Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the List of Corruption Spheres in Tax Relations and Measures to Eliminate Corrupt Practices therein, the Code of Professional Ethics for Tax Service Employees, and the Taxpayer’s Charter.

The introduction of “electronic government” has a positive role in combating corruption, allowing for the creation of full-fledged “feedback” communication between the state and the population through Internet resources, which has reduced the contacts of organizations and the population with government officials, and the amount of corruption has decreased.

The Republic of Kazakhstan has also adopted an industry-specific Anti-Corruption Program for 2011-2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Program).

The objectives of this Program are:

expanding international cooperation and improving national legislation on anti-corruption issues;

increasing the efficiency of government agencies to reduce corruption risks;

increasing anti-corruption outlook;

reducing the level of the shadow economy.

The program also notes that Kazakhstan is aware that corruption slows down the process of social economic development, construction market economy, attracting investment and negatively impacts political and public institutions democratic state, poses a serious threat to the future development of the country.

In the regions, the fight against corruption is carried out within the framework of programs approved by maslikhats. Issues of combating corruption are regularly discussed at meetings of regional akimats, the cities of Astana and Almaty, as well as coordination councils of law enforcement agencies under regional and equivalent prosecutors. In order to increase the efficiency of decisions made by disciplinary councils on the punishment of persons who have committed corruption offenses, and to strengthen the coordination of the activities of disciplinary councils in matters of combating corruption, they are transferred to the jurisdiction of the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Civil Service Affairs.

Along with the positive results achieved during the implementation of the sectoral Anti-Corruption Program for 2011-2015, the following unresolved problems exist.

Firstly, the presence of legal gaps and a significant number of residual norms in legislative acts allows government bodies to adopt departmental acts that grant unreasonably broad powers to individual officials.

TO legislative acts those requiring priority additions and changes include the Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the fight against corruption”, “On public procurement”, “On licensing” and other regulatory legal acts regulating the issuance of permits.

Further unification of regulations governing the fight against corruption with international treaties and agreements is required.

Secondly, it is necessary to further simplify administrative procedures, primarily tax and customs rules to reduce corruption; they must be simple, clear and generally known. Requirements for information and documentation should be kept to a minimum.

Improving administrative procedures should lead to limiting personal contacts between officials and clients, as well as reducing established forms of reporting and sanctions.

Thirdly, there is insufficient efficiency in management by human resourses. An analysis of judicial practice of administrative corruption law violations shows that the bulk of the perpetrators are represented by lower-level civil servants. The level of their wages and social vulnerability create economic preconditions for corruption.

This involves the introduction of a set of measures to establish high professional requirements for those working in the public sector, as well as the introduction of a system of remuneration and promotion based on an objective and unbiased assessment of the business qualities and professionalism of a civil servant.

Fourthly, there is no monitoring of the causes of corruption in government bodies. The need to monitor the factors and mechanisms of corruption, assess its level and structure, and analyze the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures require its introduction.

This assessment will serve as the basis for the systems being implemented. internal control in central state and local executive bodies in order to prevent corruption.

Fifthly, the practice of recent years shows the lack of the necessary level of activity and awareness of civil society in matters of anti-corruption policy of the state. In this regard, it is necessary to create mechanisms for the participation of civil society institutions in the implementation of this Program. No, less important is the introduction of publicly accessible and effective procedures for informing the public about the progress of the fight against corruption.

Sixth, the level of international cooperation in the fight against corruption is insufficient. In this regard, it is necessary to expand forms of international cooperation between law enforcement agencies and intensify efforts to join the Republic of Kazakhstan to fundamental international conventions in the field of combating corruption and combating the laundering of illegally obtained funds.

The experience of the Netherlands is noteworthy, where the fight against corruption is carried out very effectively by internal security services in every government agency, which account for the detection of 60% of all corruption crimes in the country. It should be noted that in some cases, heads of government agencies resort to the services of private detectives in this area.

Thus, the international legal framework for the fight against corruption in our Republic is expanding.

10. UN Convention against Corruption.

Description

On December 9, 2003, at the High-Level Political Conference in Merida (Mexico), the UN Convention against Corruption was opened for signature. The opening day of the conference was declared International Anti-Corruption Day.

Currently, 172 states have acceded to the Convention. The participating states have undertaken obligations to implement anti-corruption measures in the field of legislation, state institutions and law enforcement. Each of the States Parties to the Convention is called upon, in accordance with the principles of honesty, responsibility and transparency, to develop and implement policies to combat and prevent corruption, improve the efficiency of existing institutions, anti-corruption measures, and develop cooperation in the fight against corruption at the international and regional level.

Conference of States Parties to the Convention[edit | edit wiki text]

In order to increase the effectiveness of combating corruption and deepen cooperation between the states parties to the Convention, a special permanent Conference was established, the secretarial services of which are provided by Secretary General through the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The Secretary General provides necessary information to participating States and also ensures coordination at the regional and international level. The conference takes place every two years. On November 25-29, 2013, the fifth session of the Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption took place. Delegates from Russia included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Investigative Committee, the Accounts Chamber, the Department of Economic Security and Anti-Corruption of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Labor. The conference discussed issues of international cooperation and asset recovery, deepening information exchange between participating states, promoting the mechanisms of the Convention in the private sector, etc.

During the process of adopting the preliminary program for the next session of the Conference, disagreements arose between the participating States regarding the initiative of the Swiss delegation aimed at increasing the participation of civil society in the implementation of the Convention. China, Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ghana, Morocco and Russia voted against its adoption. The sixth session of the Conference will take place in 2015 in the Russian Federation.

The sixth session of the Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption will be held from November 2 to 6, 2015 in St. Petersburg.

Ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation[edit | edit wiki text]

The Russian Federation signed the UN Convention against Corruption on December 9, 2003, and ratified it on March 8, 2006 (N 40-FZ). The Federal Law on Ratification contains statements on individual articles and points over which Russia has jurisdiction and binding force. This list does not include, for example: Art. 20 “Illegal enrichment”, Art. 26 “Liability of legal entities”, art. 54 “Mechanisms for the seizure of property through international cooperation in the matter of confiscation”, Art. 57 “Recovery and disposal of assets.”

Article 20 “Illegal enrichment”[edit | edit wiki text]

Article 20 (Illicit enrichment) of the Convention states:

“Subject to compliance with its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party shall consider taking such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, significant increase in public assets official in excess of his lawful income, which he cannot reasonably justify.”

The main obstacle to the application of this article is its contradiction [ source not specified 754 days] from Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which contains the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence (“The accused is not obliged to prove his innocence”), as well as the absence of such a crime as illegal enrichment in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, Art. 65 of the Convention, which regulates the implementation of anti-corruption mechanisms, introduces a requirement for member states to make the necessary decisions, including within the framework of legislation, that is, to modernize Russian legal norms aimed at combating corruption:

Article 65 “Implementation of the Convention”:

1. Each State Party shall take, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, the necessary measures, including legislative and administrative measures, to ensure the implementation of its obligations under this Convention.

2. Each State Party may take measures more stringent or severe than those provided for in this Convention to prevent and combat corruption.

In December 2010, Sergei Pavlovich Obukhov and Alexander Dmitrievich Kulikov introduced bill 474238-5 to the State Duma on the ratification of Art. 20 of the UN Convention against Corruption. Later, they and deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Rashkin and Ostanina introduced another bill into the Duma (600388-5): on imposing criminal penalties for illegal enrichment. [ significance of the fact? ]

On January 18, 2013, a signature collection campaign began on the website opentown.org in support of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation bill on ratification of Article 20 of the UN Convention against Corruption. The people are against the illegal enrichment of officials! [ significance of the fact? ] [source not specified 761 days]

On December 6, 2013, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation D. A. Medvedev, at a meeting with Russian television channels, said that the Ministry of Justice was preparing proposals under Art. 20 of the UN Convention against Corruption:

“Article 20 is based on the assumption that a person (official) is presumed guilty of committing a corruption offense and must justify himself, prove that he is not a corrupt official. It's a matter of choice. You can go for it. And now, by the way, the Ministry of Justice is preparing proposals for Article 20. But we must weigh the pros and cons. “For” - the fight against corruption, this is good, let them explain where the palaces come from, as you say, this is normal for everyone. But there is also an argument against it. We understand that our law enforcement system is imperfect. And if we are talking about the fact that first a person is assumed guilty, and then must prove that he did not commit this, this is actually going beyond the fundamental principles of criminal law that we have developed.”

In addition to the above, extensive discussions are being held around the topic of confiscation of illegally acquired property. There are gaps in Russian legislation that do not allow property acquired with illegally obtained funds to be taken away from officials. In the Federal Law of December 3, 2012 (No. 230-FZ) “On control over the compliance of expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income,” Art. 17 reads:

“The Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation or prosecutors subordinate to him, upon receipt of the materials provided for in Part 3 of Article 16 of this Federal Law, in the manner established by the legislation on civil proceedings, apply to the court with an application to transfer land plots, other real estate, transport funds, valuable papers, shares (participatory interests, shares in the authorized (share) capitals of organizations), in respect of which the person holding (occupying) one of the positions specified in paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 2 of this Federal Law has not provided information confirming their legal acquisition income."

However, in the Law “On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation” and the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the specified powers to confiscate illegally acquired property are not enshrined. Russian criminal law provides for penalties and dismissal. In order to make the fight against corruption more effective, and a rule allowing the prosecutor general or his subordinate prosecutors to judicial procedure confiscate illegally acquired property in favor of the state, earned, September 24, 2013 in State Duma a bill was introduced “On Amendments to Article 22 of the Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation” and Article 45 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.”

Project "20"[edit | edit wiki text]

September 25, 2014 Russian politician Alexei Navalny, known for his opposition activities, announced the start of a public campaign for the adoption of Article 20 of the UN Convention. He called on everyone to vote for the Anti-Corruption Fund bill. This draft, in accordance with Article 20 of the UN Convention, proposes to introduce criminal penalties for “ a significant excess of the value of the official's assets over the amount of the legal income of such person" In this case, legal income is understood as the income indicated in the declaration of the given civil servant.

Navalny argues that ratification of Article 20 will significantly facilitate the criminal prosecution of high-ranking corrupt officials:

All our experience in the fight against corruption suggests that, unfortunately, we will not be able to prove now that a specific official Ivanov-Petrov […] took bribes. ... But we can prove that the official, receiving a certain amount of money, lived richer than he actually received. And this will be the basis for criminal prosecution.

According to Navalny, the ratification of Article 20 is hampered by Russian power structures:

We are aware that, naturally, the authorities are categorically against it. They cannot pass a law against themselves. According to this law, they will have to imprison half of the government.

BBC: “Navalny: Putin is fighting to distract everyone from corruption”

Civil control[edit | edit wiki text]

Art. 13 of the UN Convention against Corruption provides for the implementation of measures to combat corruption not only by government authorities, but also by society:

“Each State Party shall take appropriate measures, within its capabilities and in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, to promote the active participation of individuals and groups outside the public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations , in preventing and combating corruption and to deepen public understanding of the existence, causes and dangerous nature of corruption, as well as the threats it creates...".

Thus, civil control over the implementation of the Convention plays an essential role in the fight against corruption. Control by civil society is possible if there are principles of transparency, access to information, intolerance towards corruption and increasing public knowledge about and combating corruption. For example, the Federal Law of February 9, 2009 (N 8-FZ) “On ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local governments”, the Federal Law of December 3, 2012 (N 230-FZ) “On control over compliance of the expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income”, Federal Law of April 5, 2013 (N 44-FZ) “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs” are intended to increase awareness citizens about the activities of government bodies, about the income and expenses of civil servants, as well as transparency and public control of all government purchases and orders. De jure, the measures taken by the state should increase the involvement of society in combating corruption, as well as the involvement of every citizen in the process of public control. However, ineffective law enforcement, and sometimes its absence, prevents civil society from increasing pressure on the system of corruption.

Russia's participation in other anti-corruption programs[edit | edit wiki text]

In addition to the UN Convention against Corruption, the Russian Federation participates in various international and regional organizations, groups and programs aimed at combating and implementing anti-corruption mechanisms. Among them: Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime, Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Transactions commercial transactions, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), model laws “On Combating Corruption” dated April 3, 1999, “Fundamentals of Legislation on Anti-Corruption Policy” dated November 15, 2003, “On Combating Corruption” (new edition) dated November 25, 2008, “On combating the legalization (“laundering”) of illegally obtained income” dated April 3, 2008, G8 Declaration of July 16, 2006 “Fighting corruption at a high level.”

11. Council of Europe standards in the field of anti-corruption.

New threats posed by crime at the beginning of the 21st century require the world community to develop common principles, a unified strategy to combat crime, including the unification of legislation, the development of uniform criteria for the qualification of crimes, and the implementation of international legal norms into national legislation.

One of the most serious threats that creates a real danger to the national security of states is corruption. The world community represented by General Assembly The UN stated in its resolution A/RES/58/4 of 21 November 2003 that corruption poses a threat to the stability and security of societies, undermines democratic institutions and values, ethical values ​​and justice, and is detrimental to sustainable development and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, until today in post-Soviet states The level of corruption crimes remains quite high. Thus, according to the international organization Transperency International, Ukraine ranks fifth, and according to many independent US experts, fourth place in terms of official corruption; in terms of investment riskiness, it ranks almost first in the world.

According to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia A.I. Bastrykin, despite the overall decrease in crime in Russia by 12% in 2010, the number of corruption cases identified by all law enforcement agencies increased by 42% and amounted to almost 60 thousand crimes. That is why the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 considers the fight against corruption as the most important component of ensuring state and public security. Corruption, in accordance with the Strategy, is identified as one of the main strategic risks and threats in the economic sphere. In this regard, combating corruption is becoming a national problem that poses a systemic threat to the security of the Russian Federation. Its solution is impossible without taking into account international factors. Corruption often acquires an international character and is expressed in various ways of bribing government officials by foreign companies. This requires multifaceted international cooperation between states, including improving the international legal framework for combating corruption and close contacts between law enforcement agencies.

The international community has formed a system of standards for combating corruption and money laundering. It is enshrined in international legal acts adopted within the UN and the Council of Europe. Many of these conventions were adopted with the active participation of Russia and ratified by our country. Thus, international legal documents in accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation have become an integral part of the legal system of our state.

At the moment, the main ones in the complex of international anti-corruption documents are the following:
1) UN Convention against Corruption of October 31, 2003 (ratified by the Russian Federation on March 8, 2006);
2) UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of November 15, 2000 (ratified by the Russian Federation on April 26, 2004);
3) Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of November 8, 1990 (ratified by the Russian Federation on May 28, 2001);
4) European Union Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of member states of the European Union of May 26, 1997;
5) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of November 21, 1997 (the Russian Federation does not participate);
6) Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of 27 January 1999 (ratified by the Russian Federation on 25 July 2006);
7) Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Corruption of November 4, 1999 (the Russian Federation does not participate).

The fundamental universal international legal document regulating the fight against corruption is the 2003 UN Convention against Corruption. It emphasizes that “preventing and combating corruption is the responsibility of all States” and that “a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach is necessary to effectively prevent and combat corruption.” According to Art. 3 of the Convention, it applies to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of corruption and the suspension of transactions (freezing), seizure, confiscation and return of proceeds of crime.

The following are classified as criminal offenses:
1) bribery of national public officials, foreign public officials and officials of international organizations;
2) theft, misappropriation or other misuse of property by a public official;
3) abuse of influence for personal gain;
4) abuse of official position,
5) bribery and theft of property in the private sector,
6) laundering of proceeds of crime and obstruction of justice.

The UN Convention regulates in detail mutual legal assistance, extradition of persons who have committed corruption crimes, measures to suspend (freeze) transactions, seizure and confiscation of proceeds of crime, including property, equipment and other means intended for the commission of crimes.

Many of the provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption were previously enshrined in the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention of 1999, adopted following the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Action Program adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in November 1996. The convention justifies the need to implement, as a matter of priority, a general criminal policy aimed at protecting society from corruption, including the adoption of appropriate legislation to prosecute such offences.

The Convention defines 13 types of corruption crimes, 10 of which can easily be reduced to specification of two traditional manifestations of bribery - bribery: receiving a bribe and giving a bribe.

There has been considerable interest in the criminalization of “illegal enrichment,” which is a significant increase in the assets of a public official that exceeds his or her legitimate income, which he or she cannot reasonably justify. It is this fact of reality that becomes the object of close attention of the media and causes legitimate indignation of citizens.

The norms of international legal acts allow deviations from the principle of the presumption of innocence when investigating facts of illicit enrichment. The 2003 UN Convention against Corruption also prescribes criminalizing this act. Apparently the problem of implementing this norm into Russian legislation will soon be on the agenda. For the first time, such a provision was enshrined in the UN Convention against Illicit Trafficking narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, which asked States parties to shift the burden of proof to suspects of the lawful origin of proceeds and other property subject to confiscation.

Confiscation of property and income as a means of deterring corrupt activities is provided for in the 1999 Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. Clause 3 of Art. 19 requires the adoption of such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to confiscate or otherwise seize instrumentalities and proceeds of criminal offenses established as such in accordance with the Convention or property the value of which is equivalent to such proceeds .

Article 23 of this Convention requires the adoption of legislative and other measures as may be necessary, including measures allowing for the use of special investigative measures in accordance with national law, in order to enable the identification, search, freezing and seizure of material evidence and proceeds from corruption or property the value of which is equivalent to such income, which is subject to measures determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 19 of the Convention.

UN Convention against Corruption 2003 in art. 31 also requires measures to be taken to ensure the possibility of confiscation:
a) income

In science, a principle is usually understood as the basic principle or fundamental position of a particular phenomenon or process. When studying political or legal phenomena, researchers first of all strive to identify those general patterns, which are inherent in these phenomena and are usually expressed in principles. Knowing these principles in the future it will be much easier both to study new aspects of the phenomenon and to apply the acquired knowledge in practice. As the French thinker C. Helvetius said, knowledge of some principles easily replaces ignorance of some facts. The legislator, often establishing the procedure for regulation in a particular area at the beginning of the normative legal act, pays special attention to the principles, since they have great value not only for the interpretation of regulatory structures in law enforcement practice, but also for further regulation in by-laws.

Article 3 of the Federal Anti-Corruption Law establishes the basic principles of this activity. The legislator includes:

1) recognition, provision and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen;

2) legality;

3) publicity and openness of the activities of state bodies and local governments;

4) the inevitability of responsibility for committing corruption offenses;

5) integrated use of political, organizational, information and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures;

6) priority application of measures to prevent corruption;

7) cooperation of the state with civil society institutions, international organizations and individuals.

The listed principles can be divided into two groups: general and special. The first four principles are general in nature for the functioning of the entire political and legal system. So the principle of recognition, provision and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen is a constitutional principle of Russian statehood. The principle of legality usually reflects the requirement for the functioning of the entire system of government in terms of its complete subordination to existing laws. One of the consequences of the implementation of the principle of legality is the inevitability of responsibility for persons who violate laws, in particular those who commit corruption offences. The constitutional principle of democracy as its integral basis has the requirement of publicity and openness of the activities of state bodies and local governments. Thus, we can conclude that specific anti-corruption activities are fully built on those constitutional principles that are inherent in modern Russian statehood.

Principle integrated use political, organizational, informational and propaganda, socio-economic, legal, special and other measures speaks of systematicity in the state anti-corruption policy.

President of Russia D.A. Medvedev, at a meeting on anti-corruption issues on May 19, 2008, said: “Corruption is a threat to any state. It corrupts the business environment, reduces the capacity of the state, and affects the image of the state. But most importantly, corruption undermines citizens’ trust in the authorities, those problems that the authorities must deal with. Corruption has become a systemic problem. systemic problem we must counter with a systemic response.”

Corruption as a systemic threat to society and the state must also receive a systemic response. Quite often in the practice of public administration there is a situation when, in order to solve certain complex problems, one remedy is presented as a “panacea” which various reasons cute for the authorities. For example, this is a situation when, in order to prevent corruption, the authorities sharply raise the level of remuneration of civil servants. At the same time, it is forgotten that by itself increasing the social protection of civil servants, without applying other measures, in particular, at least increasing their responsibility, will not solve the problem, but rather will only aggravate it.

At the moment, the country has developed quite a lot of documents, both strategic and tactical, that allow for a comprehensive fight against corruption. First of all, the Anti-Corruption Strategy approved by the President of Russia is aimed at this. In itself, ensuring comprehensiveness in this work is not at all easy, since various measures and activities are carried out by completely different subjects of anti-corruption activities: from the highest government bodies to civil society structures. Government bodies at various levels are called upon to coordinate this activity and provide it with legal, material and financial means. Coordination of the activities of law enforcement agencies in the fight against corruption crimes is especially important. Here, the activities of the prosecutor’s office, which are called upon to be both organizers and coordinators of such activities, are of particular importance.

Based on the importance of the principle of complexity, a system of monitoring or external control over activities in the field of anti-corruption is necessary. At present, as independent studies show, despite the great efforts of the authorities, there are no obvious real changes in this work. It is quite possible that the reason for this is precisely insufficient attention to the issue of complexity and systematicity of the work being carried out.

In analytical works on the issue of combating corruption, the problem of practical measures attracts the constant attention of researchers. Moreover, all these measures can be divided into approximately two parts. One group of researchers defends the position of a comprehensive tightening of the fight against corruption, which involves strengthening control over the behavior of state and municipal employees, up to the use of operational investigative activities and special technical means (listening devices, polygraphs, etc.), increasing criminal measures punishments, etc. Another group of specialists places greater emphasis on preventive measures. The legislator, having established the principle priority application of measures to prevent corruption resolved this dispute. At the same time, it seems that when analyzing this problem, these approaches cannot be opposed. Indeed, from a humanistic or even rational-technical point of view, preventive measures are more preferable. For society and the state, it is preferable to prevent an offense from happening than to be forced to later fight it and eliminate the consequences. However, it must be borne in mind that the idea of ​​prevention itself implies a wide range of forms and methods, and in itself, tightening the state’s position on the issue of combating corruption and increasing its punishability is the most effective preventive measure. In general, it is believed that the severity of punishment is not so important as its inevitability. As we have seen, the legislator also takes this principle into account in the system of anti-corruption principles.

The corruption prevention system is complex system, consisting of a huge number of measures and activities of various levels and directions. It should be borne in mind that most public authorities can participate in combating corruption as a form of prevention. Also, civil society structures can contribute to this activity, also participating only in the prevention of corruption. Federal law establishing the principle cooperation between the state and civil society institutions, international organizations and individuals just emphasized the importance of such activities.

The structures of civil society are understood as various public formations created by citizens to meet their needs. They can be of various forms: from political parties to amateur interest clubs. And if one part of them sets the goal of participating in the socio-political life of society, then the majority has a non-political orientation. At the same time, it would be wrong to say that only those structures whose statutory documents specifically stipulate this goal can participate in anti-corruption activities. Combating crime, helping and assisting government agencies in this work is the duty of every citizen of the state. Therefore, if in the activities of a particular public association there is an opportunity to participate in anti-corruption activities, it can and is morally obligated to carry out these activities. For example, if we are talking about educational organizations, then they can come up with a series of actions to explain to the population the basics of anti-corruption policy and the basics of legislation. Veteran organizations can take control of the implementation of social services for veterans performed by state and municipal institutions. Youth organizations have the right to conduct educational activities, aimed at instilling in its members the idea of ​​​​the inadmissibility of corruption and, more broadly, unlawful manifestations, etc.

Diverse public organizations should be distinguished from state and municipal anti-corruption bodies, even of an advisory nature, among their statutory tasks, which also include issues of anti-corruption. In 2006, there were 3.5 thousand organizations in the country that specialized in the fight against corruption. After the start of a large-scale fight against corruption, the number of such organizations has increased significantly. Unfortunately, most of them do not direct their efforts to fight corruption, but to solve their own specific problems or the problems of their organizers or leaders. There are examples when organizations of this kind, which masquerade as “civil society” structures, themselves violate the law.

Even despite the fact that some of this kind of public associations are obvious “dummy” created to achieve far from legitimate goals, it would still be wrong to reject the potential of public formations on such grounds. In general, the problem of the formation of civil society structures in our country in recent decades, unfortunately, has a far from rosy history. Sometimes the authorities even have to take initiative “from above” in order to ensure the development of public opinion. So, for example, on the initiative of V.V. Putin, when he was president of the country, created the Public Chamber of Russia as a structure representing the interests of civil society. Currently, a network of such non-political public chambers has been created both at the level of federal subjects and at the level of municipalities.

The principle of full cooperation of the state with the institutions of civil society emphasizes another well-known truth, namely that in such an important matter as the fight against crime, including in the form of corruption, the efforts of the state alone are not enough, and it is impossible to curb it. Moreover, unlike other types of crime, corruption crime is based largely in the management apparatus itself, and many analysts are skeptical about the very idea that the management apparatus is able to suppress the disease of corruption in its body without outside help. And such effective assistance can only be provided by society, in modern terminology – “civil society, represented by its structures.

Civil society consists of its members - citizens of the state. At the same time, foreigners and persons with disabilities can reside permanently or temporarily on the territory of the state. dual citizenship. According to international law and national legislation, these individuals, like citizens of the country, must be protected from criminal acts of corruption, and also have the right to counteract them. It should be borne in mind that, unlike citizens of a state, foreigners and stateless persons are in a more vulnerable position. A citizen of the country is a member of various structures of civil society, feels the support of the law and public formations and knows the available forms and methods of protection from criminal attacks. Foreigners, for example, foreign workers, having arrived in the country, as a rule, do not have any legal, informational or financial support, so they easily become prey for corrupt officials, primarily migration services and internal affairs bodies. Therefore, for anti-corruption work, it is important not to miss these issues, but to strictly follow the norms of international law and pay increased attention to such categories of individuals as foreigners and stateless persons.

Cooperation with international organizations is also important. To implement an anti-corruption policy, colossal political will is required, both on the part of the national leadership and on the part of the entire state apparatus, that part of it that is not affected by corruption. Modern corruption crime has largely merged with ordinary organized crime, which provides corrupt officials with their physical protection. Therefore, these organizations will not hesitate to take extreme measures against those individuals whose activities will threaten their existence. Intimidation, blackmail, and other cruel measures will be used. In such a situation, effective support for the government’s anti-corruption initiatives comes from the progressive part of the world community, which has already accumulated some experience in combating corruption. In addition, there is an understanding in the international community of the dangers of corruption that is often lacking at the national level. Therefore, cooperation with international organizations is not only a source of necessary knowledge and experience, but also an effective incentive to fight corruption.

It should be noted that the principles listed in Article 3 of the federal anti-corruption law cannot be considered as a closed list. To these can be added a number of provisions with varying levels of generalization. This can be called the principle of scientificity among the principles. It is obvious that without a scientific foundation one can hardly expect an effect from one or another government activity. It is impossible to build an anti-corruption policy of the state only on the political and journalistic views and common sense of government leaders. Here voluntarism, as they say, is inappropriate. The same principle of combating corruption should be the principle of taking into account national specifics and the mentality of the population in every possible way. This is one of the most difficult problems, and at the same time, as historical practice shows, many reform plans, which were quite good in theory, were crushed when faced with the peculiarities of the Russian mentality. Therefore, if we remember that one of the organizational constitutional principles of the Russian Federation is the principle of federalism, then we should be more careful about the usual practice of our administrative structures to uniformly regulate this or that subject “from Moscow to the very outskirts.” The fact is that our federalism has a complex structure. It reflects not only the territoriality of statehood, but also the national and cultural identity individual territories or federal subjects. For example, the “Asian type” of corruption often identified in theory, when corruption understood in European terminology in a number of Asian countries is an element of everyday and managerial culture, can become a stumbling block for a number of Russian territories. Therefore, it would be wrong not to take into account the principle of federalism in the anti-corruption policy strategy.

Thus, the list of anti-corruption policy principles can be supplemented with general provisions relating in general to public policy both as such and with special provisions inherent specifically in anti-corruption policy. It should be noted that the more such principles are established, the more clear, qualified and predictable, and, consequently, effective this policy itself will be.